Co-investment paradigms as alternatives to payments for tree-based ecosystem services in Africa

Abstract

Multiple paradigms have emerged within the broad payments for ecosystem services (ES) domain for internalizing externalities of local land-use change decisions. These range from reward of ready-made ES delivery (commoditised) to reward of processes of ES generation (co-investment). Evidence from tree-based projects in Africa suggests that currently, only carbon sequestration and emission reduction are ‘commoditised’, however in an artificial way where payments are not matched to ES delivery, but adjusted or supplemented with co-benefits. Co-investment in stewardship alongside rights is more widespread and versatile for a variety of ES. Efficiency concerns of co-investment schemes can be addressed when commoditised ES or profitable enterprises with positive ES externalities evolve from these.